English/Latin

[Carmine Colacino USB-PZ]

I mean, the Latin you studied at school was Classic Latin, the one of Cicero
and Caesar, etc. Botanical Latin is a very different one, from the 16th and
17th centuries. As you should know having studied Latin. When they say it is
a fixed language (because it is a dead language) they do not refer it is
fixed throughout all its history. It became fixed just because started to be use
d
by botanists for a special purpose (taxonomic descriptions). This fact, however,
should not mean new words cannot added to it, if the need arises, of course.More
over, just because different languages have different uses of words, also
according to the prevailing theories in the different linguistic areas. So it
makes even more sense to have a neutral language where all these differences
must find a somewhat common way of expression. I believe.
To conclude, to study a language at school for 4 or five years doesn't mean we
really know it. I studied English 5 yrs at school but that's not the way I
really learned it (I mean it was a tarting point, but it required A LOT more
work than that). So the fact you do not understand Botanical Latin after 4 yrs
in which, in addition, you did study a somewhat different language, it is nort s
urprise to me :)

It would be the same if I studied the English of Chauser and then I complain I
do not understand US movie (that by the way are difficult to understand even
if you studied Modern English :).

So, in any case, I would vote for Latin, for its neutrality at least.

Bye.

Carmine Colacino
Universita' della Basilicata
Dip. di biologia
Potenza, Italy